No Hitler was before the UN Charter... now, someone going into a foreign country needs to get permission.

km

Well, I was citing Nuremberg as an example of international trials without a formal investigation and the Gaddafi arrest warrant as instigation of process without interrogation of the suspect. Gaddafi is still alive but in bin Laden's case the proper forum for inquiry is an inquest although the ICC can, and should, proceed without it because of Pakistan's inability or failure to act and the suspicious circumstances of the case.

km

Dave KM is one sick dude!

Read what your nonsense to defend a tyrant who murdered his own people.KM let the victims of his killings or their families hear you talk like that and brother your life would diminish in seconds.

There were formal prosecutors and investigations for those trials.



But the warrant was a step along a process that had started moths earlier, not the instigation of it. And while it would be much, much preferable to have one, an interrogation of the suspect (in this case, Gaddafi) is not a necessary component of an investigation, prosecution or even a trial. So I guess I'm missing your point here =)

Only after arrest and detention of the suspects, not as a precursor thereto - I'm all in favour of that... I thought you were arguing for an inquiry before arrest in the bin Laden case?


That a warrant of arrest can be issued for Obama and the soldiers he decorated without prior interrogation.

km

Diminish in seconds? In what way?

km

LOL

Not according to the UN and ICC - Laden had not only had a warrant against him but also a bounty (wanted dead or alive) across all nations, including Pakistan.

Keep in mind that;
Laden is not a country nor is represented by a country nor is a country leader nor is a public persona <-- Simply Laden is nothing but a wanted dead or alive Mass Murderer who brought shame to the muslim reputations.

Gaddafi arrest warrant as instigation of process without interrogation of the suspect.

HuH ? ?

You place a warrant and then arrest and then question, your suspect.

Nor sure where or what country, you interrogate a person (First) and then get a warrant? ? That would be detaining a person against their will.

Given they along with thousands of others had already been detained after the war -- before the court was even established or the decision even made of who specifically to put on trial -- I wouldn't put that down as the result of investigative procedure nearly as much as the unique environment soon after winning a world war: anyone you might want to prosecute was pretty much guaranteed to already be in custody ;-)



Okay, but I don't disagree with that -- I think I pretty much said the same thing in a previous post. What I do disagree with in this case is:


Throughout this discussion, you seem to be equating "investigation" with "interrogating the suspect" -- the former does not require the latter, and even the latter doesn't require an arrest.